12614 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.
48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
present an irreconcilable conflict with
this rule. There are no administrative
procedures which must be exhausted
prior to any judicial challenge to the
provisions of this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection and
recordkeeping requirements included in
this proposed rule, and there are no new
requirements. The assigned OMB
control number is 0581–0128.
AMS is committed to compliance
with the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act, which requires
Government agencies in general to
provide the public the option of
submitting information or transacting
business electronically to the maximum
extent possible.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 56
Eggs and egg products, Food grades
and standards, Food labeling, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
7 CFR Part 57
Eggs and egg products, Exports, Food
grades and standards, Food labeling,
Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
■ For reasons set forth in the preamble,
7 CFR parts 56 and 57 are amended as
follows:
PART 56—VOLUNTARY GRADING OF
SHELL EGGS
■ 1. The authority citation for part 56
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.
■ 2. In § 56.1, revise the term Washed
ungraded eggs to read as follows:
§ 56.1 Meaning of words and terms
defined.
* * * * * Order Administration Branch, Fruit and
Washed ungraded eggs means eggs
which have been washed and that are
either sized or unsized, but not
segregated for quality.
PART 57—INSPECTION OF EGGS
(EGGS PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT)
■ 3. The authority citation for part 57
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 1031–1056.
erjones on PROD1PC61 with RULES
■ 4. In § 57.1, revise the term Washed
ungraded eggs to read as follows:
§ 57.1 Definitions.
* * * * * Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:21 Mar 10, 2006
Washed ungraded eggs means eggs
which have been washed and that are
either sized or unsized, but not
segregated for quality.
Dated: March 8, 2006.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 06–2366 Filed 3–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 932
[Docket No. FV06–932–1 IFR]
Olives Grown in California; Decreased
Assessment Rate
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION:Interim final rule with request
for comments.
SUMMARY: This rule decreases the
assessment rate established for the
California Olive Committee (committee)
for the 2006 and subsequent fiscal years
from $15.68 to $11.03 per assessable ton
of olives handled. The committee
locally administers the marketing order
which regulates the handling of olives
grown in California. Assessments upon
olive handlers are used by the
committee to fund reasonable and
necessary expenses of the program. The
fiscal year began January 1 and ends
December 31. The assessment rate will
remain in effect indefinitely unless
modified, suspended, or terminated.
DATES: Effective March 14, 2006.
Comments received by May 12, 2006,
will be considered prior to issuance of
a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments
concerning this rule. Comments must be
sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing
Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., STOP
0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax:
(202) 720–8938, or E-mail:
moab.docketclerk@usda.gov. Comments
should reference the docket number and
the date and page number of this issue
of the Federal Register and will be
available for public inspection in the
Office of the Docket Clerk during regular
business hours, or can be viewed at:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurel May, California Marketing Field
Office, Marketing Order Administration
Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR1.SGM
AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street,
Suite 102B, Fresno, CA 93721;
Telephone: (559) 487–5901, Fax: (559)
487–5906; or George Kelhart, Technical
Advisor, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., STOP
0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237;
Telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)
720–8938.
Small businesses may request
information on complying with this
regulation by contacting Jay Guerber,
Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington,
DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–
2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail:
Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule
is issued under Marketing Agreement
No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as
amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating
the handling of olives grown in
California, hereinafter referred to as the
‘‘order.’’ The order is effective under the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act
of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674),
hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’
The Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order
12866.
This rule has been reviewed under
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform. Under the marketing order now
in effect, California olive handlers are
subject to assessments. Funds to
administer the order are derived from
such assessments. It is intended that the
assessment rate as issued herein will be
effective beginning on January 1, 2006,
apply to all assessable olives from the
current crop year, and will continue
until amended, suspended, or
terminated. This rule will not preempt
any State or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an
irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative
proceedings must be exhausted before
parties may file suit in court. Under
section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any
handler subject to an order may file
with USDA a petition stating that the
order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with
the order is not in accordance with law
and request a modification of the order
or to be exempted therefrom. Such
handler is afforded the opportunity for
a hearing on the petition. After the
hearing USDA would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the
district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an
13MRR1
 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
inhabitant, or has his or her principal
place of business, has jurisdiction to
review USDA’s ruling on the petition,
provided an action is filed not later than
20 days after the date of the entry of the
ruling.
This rule decreases the assessment
rate established for the committee for
the 2005 and subsequent fiscal years
from $15.68 to $11.03 per ton of
assessable olives from the applicable
crop years.
The California olive marketing order
provides authority for the committee,
with the approval of USDA, to formulate
an annual budget of expenses and
collect assessments from handlers to
administer the program. The fiscal year,
which is the 12-month period between
January 1 and December 31, begins after
the corresponding crop year, which is
the 12-month period beginning August
1 and ending July 31 of the subsequent
year. Fiscal year budget and assessment
recommendations are made after the
corresponding crop year olive tonnage is
reported. The members of the committee
are producers and handlers of California
olives. They are familiar with the
committee’s needs and with costs for
goods and services in their local area
and are thus in a position to formulate
an appropriate budget and assessment
rate. The assessment rate is discussed in
a public meeting. Thus, all directly
affected persons have an opportunity to
participate and provide input.
For the 2005 and subsequent fiscal
years, the committee recommended, and
USDA approved, an assessment rate that
would continue in effect from fiscal year
to fiscal year unless modified,
suspended, or terminated by USDA
upon recommendation and information
submitted by the committee or other
information available to USDA.
The committee met on December 13,
2005, and made recommendations
regarding their fiscal year 2006
expenditures and assessment rate.
Subsequently, the committee revised its
budget recommendation because it
anticipated higher administrative
expenses than it had estimated earlier.
In a mail vote completed on January 27,
2006, the committee unanimously
recommended 2006 fiscal year
expenditures of $1,301,121 and an
assessment rate of $11.03 per ton of
assessable olives. In comparison, the
budgeted expenditures for fiscal year
2005 were $1,217,014. The assessment
rate of $11.03 is $4.65 lower than the
rate currently in effect.
erjones on PROD1PC61 with RULES
The major expenditures
recommended by the committee for the
2006 fiscal year include $800,700 for
marketing activities, $290,421 for
administration, and $210,000 for
VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:21 Mar 10, 2006 Jkt 208001
research. Budgeted expenditures for
these items in 2005 were $680,000,
$337,014, and $200,000, respectively.
The assessment rate recommended by
the committee was derived by
considering anticipated fiscal year
expenses, actual olive tonnage received
by handlers during the 2005–06 crop
year, and additional pertinent factors.
The California Agricultural Statistics
Service (CASS) reported assessable olive
receipts for the 2005–06 crop year at
114,761 tons, compared to 85,862 tons
for the 2004–05 crop year. The
increased production of assessable
olives for the 2005–06 crop year is due
in part to the alternate-bearing nature of
olives, with heavy production in one
year followed by light production the
next. Although the committee’s
budgeted expenses for fiscal year 2006
are higher than those for 2005, the
increased production would yield
increased total assessment funds, even
at the lower rate, covering the increased
expenditures. Additionally, actual
administrative expenditures in 2005
were less than the amount budgeted,
enabling the committee to carry excess
funds into the 2006 fiscal year and offset
the assessments needed to cover
budgeted expenses.
Income derived from handler
assessments, along with interest income
and funds from the committee’s
authorized reserve, will be adequate to
cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the
reserve will be kept within the
maximum permitted by the order of
approximately one fiscal year’s
expenses (§ 932.40).
The assessable tonnage for the 2006
fiscal year is expected to be slightly less
than the 2005–06 crop receipts of
114,761 tons reported by CASS because
some olives may be diverted by
handlers to uses that are exempt from
marketing order requirements.
The assessment rate established in
this rule will continue in effect
indefinitely unless modified,
suspended, or terminated by USDA
upon recommendation and information
submitted by the committee or other
available information.
Although this assessment rate is
effective for an indefinite period, the
committee will continue to meet prior to
or during each fiscal year to recommend
a budget of expenses and consider
recommendations for modification of
the assessment rate. The dates and times
of committee meetings are available
from the committee or USDA.
Committee meetings are open to the
public and interested persons may
express their views at these meetings.
USDA will evaluate committee
recommendations and other available
PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR1.SGM
12615
information to determine whether
modification of the assessment rate is
needed. Further rulemaking will be
undertaken as necessary. The
committee’s 2006 budget and those for
subsequent fiscal years will be reviewed
and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to requirements set forth in
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
has considered the economic impact of
this rule on small entities. Accordingly,
AMS has prepared this initial regulatory
flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit
regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order
that small businesses will not be unduly
or disproportionately burdened.
Marketing orders issued pursuant to the
Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are
unique in that they are brought about
through group action of essentially
small entities acting on their own
behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 850
producers of olives in the production
area and 2 handlers subject to regulation
under the marketing order. Small
agricultural producers are defined by
the Small Business Administration (13
CFR 121.201) as those having annual
receipts less than $750,000, and small
agricultural service firms are defined as
those whose annual receipts are less
than $6,000,000.
Based upon information from the
committee, the majority of olive
producers may be classified as small
entities. Both of the handlers may be
classified as large entities.
This rule decreases the assessment
rate established for the committee and
collected from handlers for the 2006 and
subsequent fiscal years from $15.68 to
$11.03 per ton of assessable olives. The
committee unanimously recommended
2006 expenditures of $1,301,121 and an
assessment rate of $11.03 per ton. The
recommended assessment rate is $4.65
lower than the current rate.
The quantity of assessable olive
receipts for the 2005–06 crop year was
reported by CASS to be 114,761 tons,
but the actual assessable tonnage for the
2006 fiscal year is expected to be
slightly lower. This is because some of
the receipts are expected to be diverted
by handlers to exempt outlets on which
assessments are not paid.
The $11.03 per ton assessment rate
should be adequate to meet this year’s
expenses when combined with funds
from the authorized reserve and interest
income. Funds in the reserve will be
kept within the maximum permitted by
13MRR1
 12616 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
the order of about one fiscal year’s
expenses (§ 932.40).
Expenditures recommended by the
committee for the 2006 fiscal year
include $800,700 for marketing
development, $290,421 for
administration, and $210,000 for
research. Budgeted expenses for these
items in 2005 were $680,000, $337,014,
and $200,000, respectively.
Assessable olive receipts for the
2005–06 crop year were 114,761 tons,
compared to 85,862 tons for the 2004–
05 crop year. The increased production
of assessable olives will yield increased
assessment funds, even at the lower
rate. These funds, along with unused
assessments from the 2005 fiscal year
that have been carried into 2006, and
interest income, cover the increased
expenditures.
The committee reviewed and
unanimously recommended 2006
expenditures of $1,301,121. This reflects
increases in the committee’s research
and market development budgets and a
decrease in the administrative budget.
The committee recommended a larger
research budget intended to further the
study of olive fly management and
development of a mechanical olive
harvesting method. The 2006 marketing
program recommendation includes
participation in media activities in
conjunction with the release of a new
diet plan book, translation of some of
the committee’s education and nutrition
materials into Spanish, and
continuation of several outreach
activities including cookbook
contributions, Web site development,
and educational programs for school
children. Recommended decreases in
the administrative budget are due
mainly to personnel changes in the
committee’s staff.
Prior to arriving at this budget, the
committee considered information from
various sources, such as the committee’s
Executive, Market Development, and
Research Subcommittees. Alternate
spending levels were discussed by these
groups, based upon the relative value of
various research and marketing projects
to the olive industry and the anticipated
olive production. The assessment rate of
$11.03 per ton of assessable olives was
derived by considering anticipated
expenses, the volume of assessable
olives, and additional pertinent factors.
A review of historical and preliminary
information pertaining to the upcoming
fiscal year indicates that the grower
price for the 2005–06 crop year is
erjones on PROD1PC61 with RULES
estimated to be approximately $714 per
ton for canning fruit and $314 per ton
for limited-use sizes, leaving the balance
as unusable cull fruit. Approximately 76
percent of a ton of olives are canning
VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:21 Mar 10, 2006 Jkt 208001
fruit sizes and 17 percent are limited
use sizes, leaving the balance as
unusable cull fruit. Total grower
revenue on 114,761 tons would then be
$73,485,966, given the percentage of
canning and limited-use sizes and
current grower prices for those sizes.
Therefore, with an assessment rate
decreased from $15.68 to $11.03, the
estimated assessment revenue is
expected to be approximately 1.72
percent of grower revenue.
This action decreases the assessment
obligation imposed on handlers.
Assessments are applied uniformly on
all handlers, and some of the costs may
be passed on to producers. However,
decreasing the assessment rate reduces
the burden on handlers, and may reduce
the burden on producers. In addition,
the committee’s meeting was widely
publicized throughout the California
olive industry and all interested persons
were invited to attend the meeting and
participate in committee deliberations
on all issues. Like all committee
meetings, the December 13, 2005,
meeting was a public meeting and all
entities, both large and small, were able
to express views on this issue. Finally,
interested persons are invited to submit
information on the regulatory and
informational impacts of this action on
small businesses.
This action imposes no additional
reporting or recordkeeping requirements
on either small or large California olive
handlers. As with all Federal marketing
order programs, reports and forms are
periodically reviewed to reduce
information requirements and
duplication by industry and public
sector agencies.
USDA has not identified any relevant
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this rule.
A small business guide on complying
with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop
marketing agreements and orders may
be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/
fv/moab/html. Any questions about the
compliance guide should be sent to Jay
Guerber at the previously mentioned
address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
After consideration of all relevant
material presented, including the
information and recommendation
submitted by the committee and other
available information, it is hereby found
that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,
will tend to effectuate the declared
policy of the Act.
Pursuant to U.S.C. 553, it is also
found and determined upon good cause
that it is impracticable, unnecessary,
and contrary to the public interest to
give preliminary notice prior to putting
this rule into effect, and that good cause
PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR1.SGM
exists for not postponing the effective
date of this rule until 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register
because: (1) The 2006 fiscal year began
on January 1, 2006, and the marketing
order requires that the rate of
assessment for each fiscal year apply to
all assessable olives handled during
such fiscal year; (2) the committee needs
sufficient funds to pay its expenses,
which are incurred on a continuous
basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this
action, which was discussed by the
committee at a public meeting and
unanimously recommended by a mail
vote, and is similar to other assessment
rate actions issued in past years.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932
Marketing agreements, Olives,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
■ For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is amended as
follows:
PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN
CALIFORNIA
■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 932 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
■ 2. Section 932.230 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 932.230 Assessment rate.
On and after January 1, 2006, an
assessment rate of $11.03 per ton is
established for California olives.
Dated: March 7, 2006.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 06–2367 Filed 3–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–U
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2005–23159; Directorate
Identifier 2005–SW–10–AD; Amendment 39–
14510; AD 2006–06–02]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter
France Model SA–365N, SA–365N1,
AS–365N2, and SA–366G1 Helicopters
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes
an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
that currently applies to Eurocopter
13MRR1